Shenton Safaris

Fingers Off the Trigger: Zambia Cancels All Trophy Hunting Licences

Towards the end of last week Zambian wildlife authorities suspended the tender process for hunting concessions and cancelled all hunting licences for the foreseeable future.

According to sources and local news reports, Minister of Tourism and Arts Sylvia Masebo has based her decision on corruption and malpractices between the hunting companies and various government departments. She also fired the Director-General of the Zambian Wildlife Authority (ZAWA), Edwin Matokwani, as well as a number of other officials, and has instigated an in-depth criminal investigation of ZAWA and other wildlife bodies.

ZAWA, sable, banned hunting licences in  Zambia

Sable antelope in Zambia © Ian Michler

According to the Minister, she has received widespread support for her actions.

There seems to be confusion about the time period involved, with some sources stating that the suspension is only for a year. Others have suggested that the cancellation may be extended to five years in order to allow a thorough review of the hunting industry and the role it plays in Zambia. Sources have also indicated that the authorities are in serious discussions with outside wildlife bodies, with a view to them playing a more significant role in managing Zambia’s parks and reserves.

These actions come just 14 months after the previous board of ZAWA was dissolved by the newly elected president, Michael Sata, and indicate that Zambia has still not rid itself of the cartels that are rumoured to have dominated hunting in that country for decades.

I would certainly encourage the Zambian authorities to use this opportunity to take a closer look at the Botswana model that has recently stopped trophy hunting altogether. In the long term, photographic options offer far superior benefits at every level.

These developments are no doubt linked to confirmation earlier in the week that Zambian authorities have also established that foreign-registered light aircraft are involved in smuggling wildlife out of the country. Using small landing strips, these flights also violate Zambian airspace as they are being undertaken without authorised flight plans.

Readers of Africa Geographic magazine will recall my article, Sable Shenanigans (February 2012) on the 200-plus sable, owned by a South African wildlife breeding and hunting consortium, that still remain corralled outside Lusaka. In that piece, I mentioned the possibility of illegal flights taking young sable calves out of the country as the syndicate was desperate to start making money on their investment in the animals. The sable deal has direct links to the trophy hunting industry – the primary motivation for South African breeders to be involved is to supply sables with longer horns so that hunters will pay higher prices for their kills.

Given these developments, and the recent changes to the hunting laws in Botswana, it is perhaps appropriate to address the attitude recently expressed by the Vice-Chairman of the Confederation of Hunters Associations of South Africa. In early December, reports in South African newspapers quoted him on the ‘misconceptions’ the public has of the image of the hunting industry. He went on to state that these are pedalled by ‘fringe elements, animal rightist elements’ and that ‘animal rightists play on emotion’.

Firstly, how does the Vice-Chairman reconcile his comments on misconceptions with the reality of what is taking place in Zambia right now – and the role of South African operators in Zambia’s wildlife affairs for that matter? The articles also quoted him as suggesting that ‘a lot could be done to educate the urban public to the reality of hunting’. It is my experience Mr Vice-Chairman that much of the public opinion is based on facts such as those coming from Zambia. If education needs to take place, may I suggest it also include hunters and their clients?

Which leads into my second point. The Vice-Chairman and the hunting fraternity at large need to start accepting that there is a growing opposition to the practices of trophy hunting, and this is based on a variety of legitimate concerns that cover science and ecology as well as issues involving philosophies, principles and ethics. These are not going to go away – in fact, the questions and opposition will continue to grow.

And finally, if this type of puerile and reactionary drivel put forward by the Vice-Chairman is going to remain the standard response from so many within the hunting fraternity to legitimate questions on what they do and how they do it, then we will see the end of trophy hunting far sooner than those that pull the triggers would wish.

UPDATE: Since this post was written, is has been reported by The Times of Zambia that the Tourism Minister has banned hunting in 19 Game Management Areas for one year, but not in some other Game management Areas, nor on privately-owned game ranches. Leopard, lion and elephant hunting is closed everywhere.

For further reading on the Trophy Hunting debate, have a look at these posts too:

Botswana will not issue anymore hunting licenses!

Botswana Kills Trophy Hunting – Ian Michler reflects

If it Stays it Pays: The Real Commercial Value of the Big Five

Ian Michler

Ian has spent the last 24 years working as a specialist guide, photo-journalist and consultant across Africa, including a stint of 13 years based in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. When not guiding, he writes predominately for Africa Geographic covering topics on conservation, wildlife management, ecotourism, and the environment, and has been writing his popular monthly column since 2001. Ian is also the author and photographer of seven natural history and travel books on Africa, and is a past winner of the bird category in the Agfa Wildlife photographic competition (1997). He has also worked as a researcher and field coordinator on various natural history television documentaries for international broadcasters and as a consultant on ecotourism to various private sector and government agencies. Prior to his life in the wilderness, he spent eight years practicing as a stockbroker in Cape Town and Johannesburg.

  • Rhyan

    Bold move make it permanent we dont need to hunt our animals we need the real conservationist do their work the predators of the wild. They kill the weak not the best looking

  • Simon Espley

    Great post, thanks Ian

  • Carol

    This is great news, for now. Lets hope it lasts! I for one will be watching this with keen interest. Thank you for a great article.

  • Terry

    We need a few people like Sylvia Masebo in Africa. A brave lady. Well done!

    • President Camacho

      she was just fired by president of ZAM!

  • Cherryl Burgess

    Nothing has been decided yet here in Zambia. But it is a big industry for the residential Zambians who have been practicing within the guidelines and the law. It is a livelihood that is single handedly being taken away leaving them in the dark with nothing much to raise their families on. I am not one who is for hunting but there are many other aspects to this industry that have to be taken into consideration.
    I do believe Photographic Safaris are the way to go as you know that beautiful buck, lion, crocodile, bull buffalo/elephant will be able to sow it’s stunning genes into the future allowing our descendents the right to see them as they should in the wild. However as with the western world, southern africa is growing exponentially in respect of population enchroachment into national parks etc. Another article to look into is the Zambian government discussing the possibility of main arterial roads running through our national parks and the damage it will do to the flora and fauna. Therefore even with Trophy Hunting out of the way, poaching will increase ten fold where there is no consideration to numbers and quality. It will be a slaughter!

    • Simon Espley

      Cherryl, I for one am tired of the standard hunter threat that when they leave there will be a poaching bloodbath. There is no evidence to support this claim. What we do know is that hunting is being kicked out of Zambia and Botswana because of fraud, corruption, illegal activities etc – and because in the long run it does not pay the bills like photographic tourism does. What we also know is that both hunting and poaching are rife in Tanzania, Mozambique, Zimbabwe etc. If your argument holds water then surely there should be no or low poaching in those countries? Perhaps you should re-examine your argument and face some inconvenient truths. The hunting industry needs to shape up or face expulsion from countries that favor transparency and long term business models over a quick buck (pun intended).

      • Guest

        Simon – I have to disagree with you in three ways.

        1. The reasons for hunting being kicked out of Botswana and Zambia are totally different. Do not paint Botswana with the same brush as you paint Zambia, and vice versa. Hunting has been kicked out of Zambia for the reasons you have parroted from Ian Michler, however you clearly don’t know why it has been kicked out of Botswana.

        2. The Okavango is a perfect example of vast increases in poaching where hunting operators have pulled out, and no photographic companies have come in to replace them. As a photographic operator and a licensed professional guide in Botswana, I have worked in several of these areas, and I have come across poachers, their camps and their kills on foot. Have you…. ?

        3. If you are trying to draw the parallel between hunting and poaching, you really don’t know what either activity involves, as I’m guessing you have zero experience of either. Hunting and poaching are mutually exclusive activities. Do you have the necessary data on the presence of poaching activities in hunting areas? Can you honestly say that the conclusion you have come to, is as a result of data showing poaching activities in hunting areas vs. in photographic areas? Or have you just heard that poaching is rife in the countries you mention, and knowing that hunting is also allowed in these places, you immediately bring the two together?

        Express an opinion, but don’t come across like an authority on the matter, because you are ill informed on several sides of the argument.

        • Simon Espley

          Aha, glad you know me so well. Perhaps you could tell me what experience I do have? Google is your friend.

          • Guest

            Is it any coincidence that “Guest” posted 4 minutes apart from you? I know who you are; A Director of Africa Geographic. Does this automatically make you an authority on the matter? Does Rupert Murdoch have a full grasp on every story his publications publish? No. Please do not take my comments personally, however your candour comes across as incredibly well-informed when your post shows you are not, and that your opinions are based on a mix of fact and that ever-reliable source: public opinion. If you take offence personally, don’t. Hunting is a highly emotive issue, and rarely finds one who sits on the fence. So if you would like that debate, please read my full post, and comment on that, rather than involving yourself in petty squabbles and likening me to a mopane fly.

          • Simon Espley

            I don’t understand your reference to ‘guest’. Where does the mopane fly come in? Perhaps you are best left to have this conversation with yourself. Cheers

          • Simon Espley

            Hehe I get it – saw the other post. Mopane fly – I like it. Seriously though, perhaps you should focus more on your argument than trying to belittle your adversaries? I enjoy some of your comments but then you go all personal and you lose respect. Keep it real boet.

          • That would be me Robert. Your style reminds me of a mopane fly – all over the place but not much substance.

    • Agnes

      I agree with you Cherryl, not only will the poaching be uncontained but what is going to happen to the communities that the proffessional hunters look after, the schools and clinics will now have no one assisting them!!!

      • rugbyboy

        You could employ them as anti-poaching teams.

  • Pippa

    This is really great news, thank you Ian!

  • Peter Borchert

    Great post Ian, Many thanks.

  • Gordon

    Simon One comment regarding hunting practices in Botswana, it is not being shut down because of “fraud, corruption and illegal trade”. I can assure you the hunting industry in Botswana today is well controlled and there is very little illegal activity. The concern I have is the closing of hunting in the marginal areas, where there is no photographic potential, and believe me it will not develop into a photo area if you close hunting. The cattle will ultimately move in and all the cats in the area will be destroyed ultimately (it’s already happening), as well as the edible species (eland, buffalo, roan etc) will disappear.

    The Okavango Delta has been mostly closed to all hunting for 2 or 3 years already (the few remaining areas were community areas just completing their leases) yet there have been serious concerns voiced by researchers in the Okavango that the bush meat trade is rampant in the Okavango since the hunting camps closed up, and that the wildlife in the Okavango could be seriously diminished in as little as 5 years.

    For the last 4 year hunting in Botswana has centered around elephant hunting (of which we have many), which has generated a lot of money for the government, created a lot of employment for people who are not qualified enough to make a transition to photo safaris and provided protein for whole villages who would normally go out and poach for the meat. With this stopping, these people and villages will resort to their old practices of subsistence poaching, which inevitably will lead to commercial meat poaching and who knows from there.

    We will wait and see.

    • Guest

      Well said Gordon! Simon – take note. And make sure you are better informed next time. Now, at least, you are.

      • Guest

        Robert, you’re like a mildy irritating mopane fly. Buzz off, unless of course you have meaningful input, in which case I would enjoy good debate with you.

        • Guest

          “Guest” – clearly too afraid to show your real name – why don’t you read my full post and then perhaps we can enjoy a good debate.

          • That would be me. The blog would not register me yesterday, but now seems OK. I have read your full post and find it full of opinion and dodgy logic. Not worth a reply. PS I was a hunter until I got sick of the bad behavior I saw with PHs, clients and land owners. That makes me more informed than you are.

          • Nic

            Jamie…you live and are from the UK…please you know nothing about Africa and are calling yourself a hunter because you were lame and killed defenseless birds! Come and live in Botswana before you give your 2c worth – please don’t be one of these know it alls that operates from his computer. Come and experience things on the ground and get a bigger picture before you comment. Thanx

    • Simon Espley

      Thanks Gordon, you make a good point – about marginal areas. My oft-repeated concern about the hunting industry is that the lack of transparency has resulted in the entire industry being labelled as bad – in the court of public opinion as well as by legislators. The industry has to adjust to new times by weeding out the bad apples and actively fighting poaching. Or face complete marginalisation. I have always believed that hunting could play a positive role in conservation, but that sadly on the whole it does not.

  • Thank you, Sylvia Masebo, for your wise decision. And thank you, Ian, for your article, great as always!!!

  • mel

    The best news I have heard concerning the protection of Wildlife in a very long time, Eventually a person with Vision and Leadership ( Sylvia Masebo) has taken the bull by the horns.Hopefully all the illegal hunting will be completely eradicated and the people responsible face the full might of the law.It is more than time our beautiful animals be given a fair chance to breed successfully.

  • pepeNature

    I can’t believe these great news , finaly somebody in form of brain. I hope Cherryl Burgess your comment will take by the government as an issue to do something about it

  • Whilst I am not a hunter, I cannot help but raise that point that hunting plays a vital role in Botswana. I cannot speak for Zambia, however there may be similarities to be drawn.

    It is very simple: There are VAST tracts of land in Botswana which are completely useless for photographic safaris. There is not a single photographic safari operation on the planet that would invest in building a photographic camp in the majority of these areas. Firstly they are aesthetically unpleasing to the eye (e.g. Acres and acres of Mopane woodland), secondly they have no topographical relief, and thirdly there is usually very sparse water in the dry season (i.e. waterholes, rivers, lagoons etc).

    The hunting industry in Botswana has been pretty much kicked out of the Okavango Delta. I agree that the prime areas of land suitable for photographic tourism in Botswana should be turned over to the photographic industry, however stopping hunting altogether in Botswana is completely counter-productive to the notion of wildlife conservation in marginal areas where hunters still operate. There are concession areas where the wildlife has now (unfortunately) come to rely on the hunters and their camps, as they pump water from boreholes during the dry season, when there is no other surface water available. These animals do not have the knowledge of where water can be found in the dry season other than these pumped water holes, as this has been going on for a very long time. As such, any migration routes which may have been passed on from generation to generation of herbivore (excluding the elephants), have been totally lost. Also bear in mind that the constant presence of the hunting companies’ staff throughout the year (even for the seven months outside of hunting season), provides a valuable anti-poaching presence.

    If these areas are stopped as hunting concession areas, there will be an enormous die off of key water-dependent species throughout the very first dry season that the hunters are not there. Ultimately these areas will be turned over to the cattle industry, and the buffer zones which these areas were, will suddenly become major human/wildlife conflict areas on the doorsteps of the National Parks and Game Reserves. All plains game will be poached out of existence to make way for the cow, and all predators will be killed off.

    The notion that the Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP) could maintain existing waterholes throughout the dry season for these animals, is immediately disproved by citing Savuti in the Chobe National Park as a perfect example of the DWNP’s ineptitude to maintain not just one, but three water holes. I am specifically talking about before the Savuti River was flowing again. It was more often than not the safari operators who were bringing extra diesel into the bush with them to power the pumps at Marabou Pan, Rhino Vlei and Pump Pan. To believe they are capable of this responsibility is ignorant.

    If these marginal areas are taken away from the hunting companies (and believe me when I say not a single photographic company will invest in them), then it is a huge calamity for the wildlife of Botswana. The cattle barons WILL pull in, and the wildlife will disappear in numbers which will make the hunting companies look like small fry, to the die off produced once they are gone, and the cattle has moved in.

    Ultimately the reasons for Zambia and Botswana stopping hunting are markedly different: conscience (Botswana) vs. corruption (Zambia). Whilst it is very easy for the armchair safari visitor to sit in New York or Cape Town or London or Rio and say “Fantastic – now we can preserve the wildlife, not shoot it”, do not be so ignorant as to think that we do not live in an Africa with a burgeoning human population, constantly pushing at the boundaries of wildlife habitation. One cannot paint both situations/countries with the same brush.

    For wildlife to survive in Africa, the unfortunate reality is that we have to take care of people first, and our wildlife second. It just does not work the other way. Wildlife, just like us as the human race, has to pay its own way these days. For anyone to think otherwise, is purely, simply and totally Utopian. Hunting offers the option in Botswana, at least, for wildlife to pay its own way, through consumptive use – essentially, the sacrifice of the few for the good of the many.

    It has to pay to play. We cannot draw too many parallels between countries’ reasons for cancelling hunting, as every case has to be judged on its own merits. So before you sit or stand and shout death to the hunting industry, make sure you have all the facts in front of you first.

    • Hi Robert, I’d just like to note that these are not facts that you have presented here. These are personal predictions based on (possibly experience in the industry?) and what seems like fear to me.

      You have noted the fact that in the past hunters have destroyed the natural migration routes of animals and knowledge of where to find water by luring them to man-made water sources. And then you go on to use that fact to illustrate why hunters should stay?
      It’s like an arsonist burning down your house and then preventing you from rebuilding it the way it was because the view is better.

      Cattle are also dependent on water are they not? Why will these arid areas you talk about be overrun by the apparent massive ‘cattle industry’ if the area is not even suitable to host the wildlife necessary for successful photographic safaris?

      I don’t really have the knowledge or experience to comment on what will happen to fringe areas when hunting pulls out. But I do remember Ian Michler telling me in an interview, that during his Tracks of Giants trek across southern Africa he generally noted very little animal activity in hunting concessions. Not surprising given that they are shot at should they appear for people.

      Maybe Ian could comment further on that point?

      I personally approach the hunting debate from a ethical standpoint. I believe It’s simply wrong to kill wild animals for sport. Regardless of economics. You cant justify killing as a means for preserving without being hypocritical.

      At the end of the day we need to preserve our wildlife with a clear conscience.

      • Hi Paul, I appreciate your angle and response. You make some valid points, however there are a couple of things I’d like to pick up on.

        Firstly, I have expressed both facts and opinions. What I have written is based upon my experience of living and working in the tourism industry in Botswana for the last ten years.

        I, like Ian, have also walked through hunting areas. There are two points here. 1. Did Ian walk straight line routes and not along game paths, where there is a plethora of evidence of game? 2. Did he express the opinion in “generally noting” or state as fact very little animal activity. The ones who know what is in these areas are those who make these areas their offices. The hunters themselves.

        I appreciate your point made about the man-made waterholes, however (excuse the pun), it holds no water. Yes, these were man-made, and have affected historical animal migration routes, to the point whereby there are perhaps species that can be found in areas during the dry season where historically they would have never been found. However, if we look back at Wildlife Management decisions that have been made over the last century, we can at least agree that many, given what we know today, would never have been made in the first place. As such, for me, the arsonist simile doesn’t work, although I understand where you are coming from. We just have to deal with where we find ourselves now.

        Botswana is one huge big arid area (excluding the Okavango, Chobe and the Linyanti of course), yet it still supports the cattle industry which is the country’s third biggest industry after mining and tourism. So should these areas be turned over to the cattle industry (and guess where the politicians will find their votes…?), I cannot foresee a problem providing water for cattle. There is however, no value to the country in protecting an area that produces no income, and this is why those areas would, in my opinion, not be held for wildlife, and rather passed on to cattle.

        If you are looking for comment on the values of consumptive use as a land management tool, through hunting, perhaps my cousin, and your columnist John Hanks could also comment.

        I could not agree with you more on the fact that we need to try everything possible to preserve our wildlife. As a non-hunter, I do still stand by the fact that hunting can play a valuable tool in managing marginal areas.

        • Thanks for your points. And I agree with you to a degree – hunting is playing an ironic part in conservation in Africa (and believe me that is the height of irony).

          But I personally believe that in the not-too-distant future hunting will be seen as archaic… especially in light of some of the inevitable species extinctions facing us.

          Sooner or later we are going to need to come up with real, moral and sustainable solutions to wildlife issues in Africa.

          • Agreed – and sadly we live in a world where wildlife now has to pay its own way. If it pays, it plays!

      • Gordon

        Hello Paul Some comments on your response to Robert. Regarding the man made waterholes, these were a requirement of the the lease holders when they were awarded the concessions 17 years ago. It was in their management plan and the thinking was that creating artificial water holes (actually extending the life of existing water holes) would be to hold game in the areas in particular elephant and keep them away from the Chobe river front in the dry season. This is done in the national park also, although not too successfully due to lack of maintenance. I am sure this has been the case, although with the steady increase in the elephant population might not make this obvious

        By creating these waterholes, the other species in particular buffalo increased dramatically and came to rely on the waterholes and never moved away. These animals would probably die off as Robert points out as they have known no other home.

        You ask why the cattle industry will thrive in the area. The farmers will be able to afford to pump the waterholes. A farmer would only require to pump one borehole to water his cattle.

        The hunting operations in the areas spend in excess of P300,000 a year each on fuel alone to keep the waterholes pumping, and they generally have 6 to 8 boreholes in each area. I can assure you no photographic operation will be able to afford that kind of money, given the number of tourists they would be able to put through the areas. I stand corrected but understand that some of the photo operations have done economic assessments and have come up with unviable figures that they would have to charge clients. ( A figure of P2000+ per person for a self drive tourist) What would a lodge guest have to pay?

        Just to clarify a point about the game populations in these marginal areas, there is a lot of game (elephant, buffalo, eland, roan, zebra – and thousands of steinbok) but the areas are vast, not condusive to game viewing (thick mopane and teak forest) and you can drive around for hours and see only one elephant and a bunch of steinbok. Certainly not what a car load of tourists want.

        Your comment about game being shot at when it shows itself to people is really not valid and shows a lack of knowledge of the situation. These marginal areas have very little quota other than elephant, ( a maximum of 20 animals) most of which are not hunted at all, so I can assure you there is very little disturbance of the wildlife in these areas from the hunting.The game is not shot at every time it shows itself !
        Decisions about preserving our wildlife should be with made with our heads rather than with our hearts, which I am afraid to say is pretty much the case in Botswana.

      • tarquin

        There will be no animals without private ownership of land and hunting. zambia will have a hard time. look at the Savve Valley Conservancy (zimbabwe) which has hit rock bottom since hunting stopped. in nature, some must die for more to live

  • LionAid

    Thank you Ian – please be aware that allegations of corruption about the allocation of hunting concessions have been flowing back and forth – the Minister is accusing officials in ZAWA and ZAWA is also pointing fingers at her as the cancellations are allegedly a result of her “favourites” not being awarded the concessions.

    However. Statements made by the Minister in the Sunday Times of Zambia (January 02, 2013) are promising – she said “There is a lot of cheating and corruption surrounding the wildlife hunting business…It is a lucrative sector which has seen a few individuals reap from super profits from wildlife products … without any form of employment [benefit] to the local people”

    We must remember that the ADMADE project was established by international donors some time ago to pass hunting profits to rural people living with wildlife. The project has been a dismal failure, despite a considerable percentage of land in Zambia having been set aside for hunting concessions.

    I believe that increasingly those African nations who believe that sport hunting will contribute to wildlife conservation are now realistically evaluating past decisions. And such decisions might well soon involve Cameroon, Burkina Faso, Benin, Mozambique?

    Trophy hunting operators have long said they are the best conservationists in Africa, and are always backed by the big American and European pro-hunting lobbies. All admit there are some “bad eggs” within their ranks who spoil the “noble goals”. But with the sulphorous smell emanating from all hunting operations, it appears most eggs have passed their due date?

  • Kaz Cobb

    Great news but make it permanent.

  • Paula

    Fantastic news, a step in the right direction.

  • Marianne du Plessis

    Really great news! If only all other African countries still allowing trophy hunting to follow this bold brave and compassionate step. Photographic safaris are fantastic! And one can “shoot” the same animal again and again and again and again (with no harm done). This is what Africa should stand for… compassion, respect and pride for her bounty which is her wildlife.

  • Pippa

    Brilliant! Well done to Sylvia Masebo.. Progressive thinking indeed.. May this attitude spread far and wide as others follow her lead.

  • Mahmoud Mousavidehshikh

    This is something that is massive in the fight to save your wildlife! You need to sustain this position and lead others in the same direction! Bold move but the only move!! Thank you!

  • Mrs Hema Desai

    Bold move but we will need strict monitoring when hunting open up again…..

  • henriette roux

    GREAT news thank you !

  • At last a Country willing to put its wildlife before disgusting rich trophy hunters. More African Countries should follow this example

  • Margot Stewart

    This is an interesting move and one I applaud. In my opinion poaching follows hunting – it is the illegal/informal version of it.

  • truthon

    AFRICA, Zambia … Kudos to Sylvia Masebo for taking a major step and doing what’s right

  • Iamgame4guts

    Sylvia Masebo, now that is guts! Power to the leading lady in charge of the charges. I am in awe of awesome women and men against corruption.

  • Iamgame4guts

    Mr. Michler, I thank you for sharing you view and finding with the populous. You remind me of a Canon commercial. This is what I wish to do; I envy you and those of your “kind”.

  • So very grateful for your reportage and this news. Keep up the good work and God bless you.

  • BlueMarbleSafari

    Trophy hunting & hunt-guiding for profit should be outlawed worldwide.

    We need to STOP exploiting the resources that secure our existence on this planet.
    We have already compromised their habitats… now we are systematically executing them into existence.

    What do you think will become of the natural order of things by KILLING the fittest of the gene pool? (enter: the boneless chicken ranch)
    All for some senseless twit who only knows how to interact with the natural world through FEAR… and because they have enough money to allow them to go KILL defenseless animals from a “safe” distance using a “gun”… thereby not using their own wits and resourcefulness for a fair match. STOOPID Egoic little-dick diseased wimps! (And, yes, there are women who are out there “bagging trophy heads” too! … they must have had hormone treatments to counteract their natural mothering instincts)

    All Trophy Hunters should all be gathered together and secured into one cage or “preserve” and then be allowed to… hunt themselves into EXTINCTION!

    There… that should put an end to the problem!

    • Gordon

      Your comments indicate a complete lack of understanding and ignorance of the real life situations on the ground. Doing your best to be insulting really does not achieve much. Enough said.

      • $4347788

        Really Gordon? The Trophy Hunting Industry is a shameless example of arrogant humans with resources- who could care less about biodiversity. To them- the rarer the animal the more they want it…..In the US we have the bloodthirsty vampires in SCI- who claim to not support canned hunting or “high fenced hunting”. Poaching and wildlife exploitation follow trophy hunting ….The African Lion is a perfect example…….Who is responsible for the serious decline in Lion numbers? It’s foreign wealthy trophy hunters……South Africa should be ashamed the way they breed animals for the bullet……Maybe you support that type of thing….for the jobs…screw morality and ethics

        • Gordon

          There are more lions in South Africa than any other country, maybe more than all the other counties together. Maybe the players from both sides should work together and take lions from SA and re-introduce them to the depleted countries. While I don’t approve of canned hunting, if the lions in SA cannot be hunted they will be destroyed by the breeders as they cannot afford to feed them, and I’m sure you will not agree with that either. So now what?

        • If you honestly believe that the decline in wild lion numbers by some 95% in about 20-25 years is mainly down to “foreign wealthy trophy hunters”, you are ignorant and misinformed. Hunters have had a their share of that 95%, but nothing even close to the biggest killer of all which has been human/lion conflict as the human population surges, and moves closer and closer to wildlife habitats, putting pressure on wildlife. It is not just the lion that is suffering either. Unfortunately there is a direct correlation between the average number of children born to women in a country (any country around the world), and its levels of education afforded to women. Direct! Poorly educated Africans breed. A lot! And they have to feed themselves and their families. Who suffers? The wildlife does. People have to live off the land, but when that resource is being shared between man and beast, there is only going to be one winner. You got it – the greediest of them all – homo sapiens. Hunters make a very convenient scapegoat, which is what the majority of the ill-informed people commenting on this page have done.

    • Blue Marble- the bloodthirsty degenerates who support trophy hunting in Africa think they are doing Lions a favor by leading a lactating mother into an enclosed pen to shoot her in front of her cubs… jobs jobs…..

  • George

    Go check out what has happened in Kenya since hunting was banned. If wildlife pays, it stays.

  • Fred Orban

    Fantastic foresight and certainly an example of true sensible leadership in Africa..Well done Zambia…

  • I love this .. I may live in Iceland but my love for animals goes beyond the moon and back 🙂

  • I hope this ban is for the right reasons, and not some political shuffle…

  • Barend Dorfling

    I am a Hunter! I’am permanently based in Namibia where I practice my hunting 10 months of every year. If I would have to put my self in the shoes of the people in Zambia I would be very afraid! Just for interest sake, our safari operation employ 52 people on a permanent basis. This is 52 working people, 12 months out of a year. If we did not practice any hunting there would of been 52 family’s without an permanent supply of meat, milk and no income. Do any of you have an idea how big these family’s are? Anything between 6-8 people if not more, more or less 300 people that is relying on us to support them. This is what is going to happen in Zambia! Here every single person working for us get 5 kg of meat every week (260 kg of meat every week, 1040 kg of meat every month) 3L of milk every week and they have access to a fully stocked shop.

    Poaching will skyrocket if we don’t keep on hunting, how else will these people supply there family’s with meat?

    Tell me how you are going to supply your guests and staff with meat? Or are you going to promote vegetarian safaris?

    You are very narrow minded and tunnel sighted. PICTURE THIS!! Its not about killing the best looking or killing the biggest. Have you ever thought about taking out the oldest animal in the group to give the younger animal a chance of being in charge? New genes in the group for a new gene pool! This makes for better quality animals for us all to enjoy, both photographic and hunting. What is wrong with that picture??

    We as humans have interfered in wildlife so much over the last century, it is our responsibility to control our actions and what has happened in the past and what happens in future. Hunting is a critical component in the conservation and control of our wildlife. How will you control wildlife without Hunting? By putting up more fences? Or by ASKING a 5 TON Elephant not to invade plantations or come in contact with humans? I’am not saying that all animals that come in contact with humans should be killed, I’am saying that you are not going to stop what is happening or going to happen at this moment by stopping hunting permanently.

    Stopping hunting is not going to solve our problems.

  • MadalaNdlovu

    ” In the long term, photographic options offer far superior benefits at every level.”

    How do you support that statement? I don’t like hunting, but I don’t see how a photographer is going to pay as much as a hunter. I think you’d have to get 1000 photographers to pay as much as 1 hunter, and I don’t see how that’s going to happen.

    I think the solution lies elsewhere.

  • CaptainSakonna

    Excellent. We could argue all night about whether this will ultimately lead to reduced wildlife habitat and an upsurge in poaching, or not. However, I am personally prepared to salute the principles behind this decision. Yes, there will be some poaching no matter what, but this is true of every crime, and it isn’t standard practice to let abusive things be legal just because “it’ll happen anyway.” We don’t apply that standard to attacks against humans or pets, so why wildlife? The value of a law such as Botswana’s is that it helps cement trophy hunting as something which is socially unacceptable — a change of perspective that I believe we desperately need, and one that might even have an effect on reducing poaching. Right now, a poacher is just a thief to many people … but what if he were treated more like a murderer? Would he have the guts to keep doing it?

    Returning to the notion of hunters as conservationists, that whole argument presumes that species and habitats are the only items of value in the equation. However, the death and suffering incurred by individuals as the price of this benefit is not to be lightly brushed aside. Individual animals have unique personalities and are irreplaceable; try comforting someone who has just lost a pet by telling him that there are millions of the same species remaining, and see how far you get. Hunters have a certain incentive to protect animal populations so that there will be plenty to shoot later, but that’s not the kind of “protection” you or I would want, and I don’t think it’s what the animals want. If members of our own species were treated this way, we would think of it as the stuff of horror movies, even if we were assured in return that the human race would never be allowed to die out. In fact, if we had a choice in the matter, perhaps we would rather be extinguished than raise our children in a world where they could be slaughtered on the whim of some rich tourist with nothing better to do.

  • It must be permanent, but is great! Now I ´m going to make plans to go to Zambia on hollydays!

  • Fascinating story and I can see there is a lot to be sorted out to create win-win scenarios in each country …

  • D.Woodley

    Yes,Yes and Yes.Both the article and the Readers comments have valid justifications and concerns.Yes the Rural Communities will loose a source of Employment,Legal Meat and local Projects with no immediate alternative.Yes there has been rampant corruption within the Industry and this move has been a long time coming.Yes by removing the incentives for the Hunting outfitters to Patrol and develop their areas there will be a migration of Hunters out of these zones.Yes a lot of these Hunting concessions are not suitable or attractive to Photographic Safaris.So in Summary,the Rural Communities are going to loose out on Benefits to Wildlife and the Protected areas are going to gain.I personally would have favored a phase out phase in approach and make sure that all the Gaps,Recourses,Finance and Legal,are adequately addressed.Equitable Benefit sharing from non-consumptive Wildlife use is almost impossible and most unlikely to benefit those Communities who live in marginal and scenically unattractive areas,with the result that you will end up with an Environmentally unfriendly Land use conversion.Actually,my main concern which i haven’t heard voiced here is the Smoke screening and diversion that such a move would have to distract the Publics attention away from the Elephant and Rhino Poaching crisis.Kick everybody out of the Bush and remove the Rural Communities incentive to Conserve and Poaching can continue unabated and undetected.Kenya 1977.

  • Caroline Mason

    Well done, a bold move – very courageous. Thank you and again well done.

  • A bit naive about the minister acting in the interests of conservation – seems the companies she has an interest in didn’t win a concession! This is the Zambia we all know and love!!

  • Motsumi

    It does not have to be an all or nothing situation!!

    It always surprises me how many ignorant people there are in the world! By banning hunting you not going to solve anything. Poaching is going to sky rocket especially in those areas that are not aesthetically pleasing enough for the large majority of non-hunting tourists, which, by the way, are the vast majority of the areas that will fall under the ban. Most hunters are very specific in which animals are removed, usually the very old , unproductive males, but poachers will now be able to come into these areas unhindered and they are most certainly not selective and will kill whatever they can find.

    Most people who jump up and down about hunting, I have found, have never taken the opportunity to spend a little time with an outfitter to really see what it’s all about. I will admit that, like in any industry, there are those that bring the hunting industry into disripute. Be more constructive and tackle these individuals who would be underhanded in whatever they did anyway. Banning hunting is also not going to change corruption in governments – this will continue. It is my opinion that some of the officials in the government will enjoy the wilderness all to themselves so that they can poach unabated for common species as well as Rhino and Elephant (nice unchecked trade).

    At our safari operation we have had many a non-hunter and in many cases fairly anti-hunting people stay with us for a while. They experience first hand what hunting for meat and its use as a game management tool are all about. They engage with us and discuss and debate the issues with us and I must say that discussions can sometimes become fairly heated. At this point, having seen it all first-hand and being in a position therefore to judge for themselves, they become more aware and accepting of the role of hunting in land management and the virtues of hunting for the pot. Let’s face the facts; an animal hunted for the pot suffers far less than one bred in captivity, force-fed and then trucked around the globe only to be slaughtered for our consumption! Many of the photographic lodges serve only domestic animal meat and marine fish on their menu’s along with veg. etc. These meats are often flown in from great distances and have large carbon footprints?? Eat local produce, fancy foods should not be welcome in these far our places.

    I have no with problem making those most aesthetically pleasing areas available for photographic safaris only, but there could be a well-managed area around those which can be used for hunting (consumtive) and related industries. There is room for all!!

  • Peter

    Congratulations to you Ms. Masebo. Your action can only lead to the good of not only your wildlife but also Zambia as a whole. By showing a strong stand against malpractice you are encouraging the world to support your endeavour and this has historically always been more rewarding to a nation than the corrupt lining of a few pockets.
    To the hunters I would say that you must by now be feeling the pressure of mounting sentiment against your profession. Personally I do not stand totally opposed to the idea of hunting as a reasonable way to protect and justify the conservation of what could loosely be described as fringe wilderness but it is YOU the hunters yourselves who are digging your own grave. Come clean! Pull your profession into line with a rigorous mandate and expel those who step outside it. When you toe the line with doctors and lawyers who discipline their own ranks effectively you will be heard as having a reasonable argument. But for now, the buck seems to be your most precious objective and in that place Ha! Ha! we don’t believe you not matter what you say because you are lumped together with the rot.

  • Bennet

    Read this if you are an animal lover!!!

    Firstly, I am not choosing sides between hunting and
    non-hunting. I am a conservation officer
    in one of the larger game reserves in South Africa, so I understand nature
    conservation in South Africa.

    Secondly, congratulations to Zambia for trying to sort out
    the corruption in the hunting industry, that is exactly the positive
    enforcement the hunting industry needs.

    Thirdly, I would like to paint a picture that would
    hopefully give both parties food for thought.

    Non-hunters and no killing of animal lobbyists, I can
    understand exactly where you come from because I was also an animal lover, that
    is why I studied nature conservation. I
    too did not understand why anybody would like to kill animals, I did not grow
    up with hunting and it was completely out of my frame of mind and I also
    condemned all hunters. I then started
    studying nature conservation and my world got rocked of its axes. Because only if you start studying a concept
    in depth are you able to understand all the factors.

    So let me paint a picture.
    I am Tim and I love animals, so what do all animal lovers dream about,
    having their own piece of land in Africa where they can let the animals they
    love roam free. So I get lucky and I buy
    3000 hectares of prime African bush fenced off course. (7% of SA land mass is under National Parks,
    17% is under privately owned game farms)
    So I buy Impalas, Zebras and Wildebeest for my farm for a hell of a lot
    of money and no way is anybody ever going to hunt on my farm. So the animals are happy and they breed and
    multiply and all is well. After a few
    years I realize my animals are in a horrible condition but even worse my prime
    African bush is destroyed and my animals are starting to die. Why did this happen. Because there was no balance. Nature loves balance. The animals were left to multiply
    unconditionally and they ate all they could and was left with nothing and now
    they are all dying. So what could I have
    done to prevent this? I could have introduced
    some predators that would have kept the numbers under control naturally. But predators also multiply and after a few
    years I am left with predators dying because their numbers got so big that the
    herbivore production could not sustain them anymore. So now all my animals are
    eaten and now my predators are also dying and all my money I spent on buying
    the farm and animals are also gone.

    And now I need everybody to please pay attention and read
    this with a bit of understanding and open mindedness.

    So what did I do, I negatively affected conservation, I got
    all the animals I so loved killed because I did not manage (big word) the animals
    I had. So how do I on my little farm
    manage my animals? Well I did spend a
    hell of a lot of money getting them and so positively affected conservation,
    but my money is not never ending and I maybe I can even further conservation by
    ploughing in more money into my farm. So
    how do I obtain more money to further conservation??? I get hunters in to come and manage my animal
    population. Managing my animal
    population means selectively removing animals in an attempt to control their
    numbers so that I can conserve my piece of prime African bush, which is
    actually the purpose of conservation, because you can have all the animals in
    the world but if there is nothing for them to eat you can’t conserve them,
    logical right. So I can manage my
    animals by letting Jack hunter selectively and ethically (big word) hunt
    some of my animals. What does this mean
    to me? Jack hunter pays me to come and
    shoot an animal. That money I can use to
    pay off my farm or better yet buy different animals or even better yet, save
    that money in an attempt to buy more land to conserve more natural areas and
    eventually more animals. So now my farm
    is providing me with money thus making my farm sustainable. But what else? Because Jack hunter is paying me money I can
    employ people to help me on the farm.
    This means uplifting the community, and by providing them with jobs they
    obtain money and can buy meat, which previously they might have poached from
    the little game that there was left in the area, and in so doing negatively
    affect conservation. But not just that,
    Jack American comes to shoot a trophy impala.
    Jack is sent back to America with his trophy, but the meat is still not
    wasted because part is given to the employees or processed and sold for money
    for me so that I can save money to further conservation.

    Let’s face it the hunting industry is not without criminals,
    just like governments are not without criminals or every business sector for
    that matter. But the money Jack is
    paying is also helping bringing governing bodies into live, trying to see to it
    that hunting is being done ethically and legally, nobody else is providing
    money for that, hunting is proving that for itself. Because despite the occasional criminal,
    hunters loves nature and also wants to see nature prosper and conserved. (Took
    me to go on a hunting trip to figure that out)

    Ok so you still say no hunting allowed. No problem what is my alternatives. Ok I sell my animals to other game farm
    owners. But they also believe in no
    hunting so pretty soon the market is saturated and nobody wants to buy my
    animals. So we are back to square one, to many animals, animals destroy nature,
    animals and nature die. I negatively
    affected conservation.

    Then there is one more alternative to hunting and
    selling. Culling. But what does culling mean? It means I have to go in myself and kill off
    some of my animals to manage their numbers.
    So animals are still being killed because there is too many and I
    somehow have to manage my animal population in order for me to manage the
    environment in order for it to be sustainable.

    So the point I am making is that by kicking and screaming
    every time the word hunting is used is not going to conserve our environment
    and if we cannot conserve our environment we cannot conserve our animals,

    Ah but now there is eco-tourism. Jimmy tourist is bringing us big money to
    come and see our animals, but where does Jimmy go? He goes to the big-five game reserves not to
    my little piece of Africa, because on my piece of Africa I can only sustain
    certain animals. And please don’t fool
    yourself and think that in these pristine big-five reserves animal management
    is not being done, someone somewhere still has to manage certain animal
    numbers, why because we have to manage our environment. Of course the bigger
    the park the less management is needed because nature has more opportunity to
    bring itself in to balance.

    So what amount of money does eco-tourism and hunting contribute
    to conservation in South Africa?
    Eco-tourism- R 2 billion every year.
    Hunting – R 2 billion every year.

    So now we take away hunting. Poef R2 billion that has helped conservation
    gone. Any idea how many animals has just
    died because we took away hunting. What
    did we just do, we negatively affected conservation. How many people are now without a job and
    might resort to poaching to provide for their families. (Yes I also never
    thought about that)

    By campaigning for
    hunting to be banned and making hunters out as bad nasty animal hating people
    (which I found out is actually completely the opposite, once I actually start
    making an effort to understand nature and the hunting industry) , we are actually doing exactly the opposite
    of what we set out to do, and that is to conserve animals. Because by conserving animals we are not
    necessarily conserving nature.

    A very good example
    of this is the Elephant. Elephants used
    to be culled in game reserves in South Africa to control their numbers in the
    1970’s to about 1990. Then huge protests
    from animal lovers and protests held by animals lover lead to the banning of
    elephant culling in game reserves.
    Elephant numbers double every 10 to 15 years, do you have any idea how
    much impact an elephant has on the environment?
    So great Anna animal lover in America is now very proud of herself
    because now no more elephants are going to be killed in South Africa. Thank you Anna, because of your short
    sightedness and narrow mindedness a whole eco-system is now under threat from
    collapse, because the elephants are destroying the environment and with it
    themselves as well as all the other animals Anna loves. And all this because
    Anna heard animals where being killed or hunted but never did the effort to
    study up on conservation or the principles of conservation.

    And yes I was just like that, because I did not know
    anything about conservation or animals, I just loved them. Unfortunately human emotions do not apply to
    nature, nature works by its own rules.
    And by mudslinging and making comments about something we know nothing
    about except for the fact animals are being killed we are actually negatively
    affecting conservation and the sustainable management of our environment.

    It took me a while to rap my head around the whole concept
    but eventually I did, and when I did it all made sense. You don’t have to like hunting or culling, it
    is not in everybody’s personality, just like I would not like sitting in an
    office, it not my personality. But I
    don’t go out slinging mud to people who sits in an office (well not anymore), I
    understand it is necessary. I really
    hope some people will at least give this a thought, and by just giving it a thought you are positively affecting nature
    conservation and not just loving animals but loving nature, which is much more

    • Gordon

      Unbelievably well put.

    • Nancy

      Thank you for that! A realistic voice regarding conservation!

    • Very well said indeed. A fair, balanced and wholesome view on animal conservation. Totally unemotional and to the point – exactly what many people who have commented on this thread need to read. It may open up some incredibly ignorant minds to the bigger picture of Africa.

    • Aye, it’s a well worded response and very well put. However I find it hard to believe that any student of conservation would need to find out through trial and error that nature requires a balance. Survival of the fittest and all that.

    • bullshiter ..

      you are a liar and you know it. You say what ? Animals cannot survive without you and your farm in a natural environment ? BULLSHIT. So before you it was no animal and no natural environment. AHAH… are you serious ? get paid for let asshole killing protected animal ? and you say “its the nature” but, hey guy ! the autoregulation is an AUTOREGULATION of the nature, not by you, not by anyone, get your bullshit under your shoulders and shut the fuck up.

      • Neil

        Dear yellow
        Do you know that it’s a scientifically proven that if you have to swear as much as you do you have had a very poor upbringing and are actually quite stupid.
        No wonder you believe that nature can survive without any proper conservation and management especially in Africa because the African people believe it’s there god given right to help them selves to any thing that’s not .poaching.why do you think we still have animals in most of Africa you dim wit ? It’s because of people like Bennett Baxton who is a true conservationist at heart and the hunting community,which is made up of presidents of country’s and people like us who like to conserve to hunt.not people like your self. What do you even claim to be? what have you given to conservation? How many animals have you pulled out of snares?how many dogs have you shot chasing around defenseless does and fawns ? How many hours have you spent chasing poachers around? How many poaches have you apprehended and put your life in danger for the animals?!!!!
        You sit there and swear and foul mouth a true conservationist !!!
        You are a yellow bellied foul mouthed coward.
        From a Hunter and Conservationist .
        Why don’t you leave a name yellow.

        • Oh really? It’s scientifically proven that swearing is good for you too. What about it? Scientifically proven that people who swear are stupid? You’re the blithering idiot.

      • tarquin

        Listen, stop trolling on your computer and find some information about WILDLIFE CONSERVATION to read. If you read and understood, this guy explained exactly why animals couldn’t live on a small property without management. (you forget that he would have had to buy and import animals why? because there were none. Why? No management)

        • Pat

          Except it’s not true. Wildlife manages itself very well on its own. The populations will reach homeostasis on their own….yes read an ecology book yourself. When there are too many of them they don’t breed…a concept humans can’t understand.

          • Assegai Rhodesian Ridgebacks

            No, when there are too many they STARVE and are unable to reproduce. Human population has also limited suitable habitat to a degree that without management species will be lost. For example, the Lion.

          • Ben Bristow

            Yes they will stop breeding however the animal population will have reached its ecological carrying capacity and in a very short time you will notice major overgrazing, inter-species conflict and infanticide on your property.

            (Wildlife does indeed manage its self in large area’s say 15,000 ha and beyond, but personally i would recommend 25,000 ha and more for an extensive management plan.)

      • Assegai Rhodesian Ridgebacks

        Why is it that the anti-hunting crowd must always resort to rudeness, name calling and profanity rather than logic, facts and persuasive discourse? Ah, perhaps it is because the facts support hunting as a vital part of conservation.

    • Assegai Rhodesian Ridgebacks

      Elegant argument – thank you.

    • Lloyd

      A very well written post. Well done. You make a lot of sense. The problem is the difference between logic and emotion. On an emotional level, I don’t like hunting. I don’t like to think of an animal being shot simply for someones pleasure. But on a logical level, I know that without someone being willing to pay money to shoot the animal, there will be a lot less habitat for animals, and without habitat that animal or any of the others in it’s herd wouldn’t have existed anyway.

      You explain it very well.

    • Casey Terrell

      hunting and culling are not synonymous. culling efforts (should) focus on the weak and less desirable individuals who may harm a pack or herd’s overall health. predators naturally focus on these members of the herd, so balance is reached in a sustainable and natural form. predators control their own populations through the same practice.

      trophy hunters prefer the best and most impressive individuals by and large, which causes a severe negative impact to the gene pool and overall health of the group. the weak are not desired and not killed, allowing their genetics to spread during mating season. trophy hunting is evolution in reverse.

  • Fantastic. After having done a few photographic safaris, it amazes me how anyone can think these are anything different than going to an open zoo and shooting tame animals. It would be fantastic to see this transitioned from temporary to permanent.

  • Nancy

    Firstly, Sylvia Masebo does not have the jurisdiction to unilaterally cancel hunting in Zambia, but she did it anyway. Does that not raise red flags? The minister fired the ZAWA staff – THE DAY BEFORE THE ANNOUNCEMENT of the hunting blocks – does that not raise red flags?!!!!! Look at the facts and look at the timing – you may start to see the real story.

    The Ministers actions APPEAR to support anti hunting. If conservation is a primary concern, however, please do not jump so hastily on a supposedly conservation minded bandwagon. It is the one heading for the slaughter of Zamiba’s precious wildlife.


    What is the best way to show our support and congratulations to Sylvia Masebo. I believe in positive reinforcement. Please advise. Thanks for the great report.

  • Norabo

    I find the arguments for a conservation benefit to hunting ludicrous and deceitful, but no doubt hunters need to make these arguments as they well know that arguing for hunting as an act is, in and of itself, defenceless. Any perceived benefit is just that, perceived, for the principle motivation is nothing other than the wanton destruction of an animal for the purpose of ‘sport’. And what ‘sport’ it is where individuals travel from half around the world, at great expense, for the absurd pleasure derived from ending life and the meaningless trophy that goes with it. All income derived from these acts is blood money, no different to that derived from blood diamonds, as the means to that end is an unnecessary and unethical destruction of life. It’s high time we as members of broader society lent our weight against this psychopathic slaughter and looked to safeguard this heritage for the benefit of future generations, by means whose motives can be regarded as purely in the conservation interest.
    Great article Ian, thank you for raising this important topic yet again.

    • Andre

      If it was not for the hunting industry in Africa, ALL Sable would have been gone by now, matter of fact, most species. There is a fine balance between conservation and hunting, and both sides need to be heard and understood

  • Kelly

    Wow! You people that are hunters try and lay your desires for hunting on these people living in the villages! News flash they might have brains and should use them for generating income besides hunting. Hunting provides meat for protein as in elephants & bushmeat, come on, really? I don’t eat animals so that’s a load of crap too

    • Gordon

      Come to the areas, visit the people in the remote villages, see their harsh life, before you make silly comments like that. Asking them to be vegans….oh dear, you are so unenlightened.

  • Manel Dias

    Thank you Zambia.!!! I have travelled to Zambia a long ago. I always thought the Zambians are well educated & intelligent people. Now they proved it. While some other countries are still thinking what to do & you people stood for the right reasons & to do the right thing for the Planet Earth. Save the Environment, save the Animals, & Protect the EARTH. We all belong into the same planet. Bravo ZAMBIA.!!!

  • Manel Dias


  • T’oma

    I have watched some programs on the “Sportsman” channel, their title,not mine. These individuals got great pleasure in shooting magnificent animals like Bears, Lions, Mountain lions etc. this made me feel physically sick to my stomach. One woman does it so she can paint the skulls of her kills so she can sell them. It is digusting. I wait for the day ALL trophy hunting is

  • Duri

    I love the way Bennet puted it, specially coming from a conservacionist. I have been a hunter/outfitter all my life. I start with my 20´s in Angola, than 11 years in Sudan and since 1987 in Zambia. For thousands of times I have tried to speak with anti-hunters about the goodness of hunting towards conservation and failed most of the times to convince their pardons, as they are emotional, I guess!
    Today, the way I prefer to think is that hunting doesn´t need apologies.
    It´s one of the very first things praticed by the Humans and one of the very few we still have in common. Wherever there is game and fish, there are hunters and fisherman. We are one of the predator species and We can not run away much out of it.
    Hunters exist for thousands of years and in one way or another, it´s a fact that all races have known, how to bring the game until these days of “Greens”.
    The hiden issued of the modern squared conservacionist against the hunter is that, they are able to conserve without bagging to no one and that proove contrary to their animal´s love demands for Conservation, as they were able to turn this issue in a multi million dollars business.
    To congratulate our Minister to have the courage to start curfew corruption of the Country through a hunting ban, there are certainly other better places to start with.
    Animals had suffered danger from time to time, but this time what makes it very danger, is that they do it in name of Conservation.
    They cut their horns, fasten their legs, bored their ears, insert chips under their skin with their respective antennas, paint them orange, take them to paradise gardens controled by electric fences and sometimes make them to live with others we call exotics, etc, etc.
    Animals in purgatory, before tamed. Poor animals if you guys can convince us all!!

    If the two african animals in appendice I of the IUNC are the Elephant and Leopard, than we are playing something, but is not Conservation.

    The Fauna is one of the greatest creation of God and to know it through hunting is Divine.
    It´s one of the best and most economic ways of Conservation,… like it or not!

  • truthon

    Thank You, Sylvia Masebo … Your decision is truly uplifting and heroic … ZAMBIA cancels hunting concessions and trophy licenses

  • Sasha Airesse

    What is the status of these suspensions today?

  • Pingback: Zambia’s Hunting “Bans”—Shedding Light on a Complicated History | National Geographic (blogs)()

Africa Geographic